Mr. Snyder testified against HB 577 during the House Health and Welfare Committee hearing infusing false and confusing testimony to the debate.

Legislator Responds to Attack on CBD Oil Bill

I need to clarify the intent of the Cannabidiol (CBD) Oil legislation, HB 577, which has been under attack by candidate Michael Snyder. I recently watched his interview on Redoubt News, March 21st, and was alarmed at his attempt to tie HB 577 to the unintended consequence of losing one’s 2nd Amendment rights. I was disappointed by the misinformation he espoused in this interview, likely hurting future Cannabidiol Oil legislation in the State of Idaho.

CBD Oil discussion begins approximately 49:00 minutes

The first CBD bill, HB 410 included requirements to visit your licensed practitioner and receive a registration card through the Board of Pharmacy. The source of CBD Oil must have a state regulated laboratory analysis for purity. This bill was revised after citizen input from around the state and with consultation from the Health and Welfare Chairman to see if odds were good to move this bill through the House without the registration card.

I quickly prepared a second bill, HB 577, to remove the registration card. People who wanted a legal pathway to use CBD Oil could then visit their licensed practitioner, receive a statement from their doctor to carry with their CBD Oil in the event they needed to prove their legal possession, and would require the CBD Oil to have a state regulated lab analysis for purity. HB 577 passed unanimously through the House Health and Welfare Committee and eventually through the House Chamber with a bipartisan 85% majority. The bill has since been held in the Senate Health and Welfare Chairman’s drawer at the request of the Governor. There will be no further movement for CBD Oil legalization in Idaho this year.

Candidate Michael Snyder issued a Facebook video on March 21st after the Redoubt News interview. He referenced HB 410 which was not the bill the House voted on. He continued to say that the registration card would affect a person’s 2nd Amendment rights. There is no registration cardrequirement in HB 577.

Mr. Snyder testified against HB 577 during the House Health and Welfare Committee hearing infusing false and confusing testimony to the debate. He based his comments on HB 410, not HB 577. This misdirection and false narrative will substantially undermine future attempts to make CBD Oil legal which contradicts candidate Snyder’s appeal for its legalization. Arguing the correct bills and facts is paramount to intelligent debate.

Below is the link to the Facebook video Mr. Snyder distributed with Health Freedom Idaho’s Rachelle Emery on March 21st. For all of the people who want to legally use CBD Oil in the future please disregard Mr. Snyder’s tie of CBD Oil use to losing one’s 2nd Amendment rights. He is completely wrong.

I don’t have a dog in this fight, but this lawmaker really needs an education on this area of the law. The use of CBD oil clearly does have second amendment implications, especially if there is a paper trail created. Yes, a doctor’s letter is arguably a less easily accessed paper trail than a state registry, but it is a paper trail nonetheless.

Wilson v. Lynch is a 2016 case from the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (of which Idaho is part, meaning the decision is Federal case law in Idaho), wherein a medical marijuana card holder from Nevada was prohibited from purchasing a firearm. Despite the fact that it was undisputed that she had never even used her medical marijuana card, the Court upheld the prohibition on her even possessing a gun or ammunition, citing 18 USC section 922(d)(3), 27 CFR section 478.11, and an ATF open letter to Federal firearms licensees.

This prohibition applies equally to extracts of marijuana. 21 CFR Part 1308.

Also, last year, the Honolulu Police Department sent letters to medical marijuana card holders demanding that they surrender all of their firearms within 30 days, citing the Federal prohibitions. Although follow through was put on hold due to public outcry, that was the result of a political hurdle, not a legal one.